Comment on YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users

• LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  yes, actually! its a positive thing when people can admit that. I was just getting frustrated that you were beating around the bush when you were wrong. look, I, too, believe in net neutrality and companies not being anti competive dick holes, but we gotta use the right words for things or else people star mixing issues up and it weakens the issue as a whole when people start confusing it with other things.

  source

  • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I disagree because language is imperfect and everyone has their own connotations for words and ideas, no matter what you do. You can’t unmake that part of humanity, where certain words and ideas make us feel things. I think the focus on “words of the law” over “spirit of the law” is how America has turned into a fucking shithole by letting every scumfuck get away with stuff that’s “within the letter of the law” because people stopped giving a fucking shit about the “spirit of the law.” In some countries, they don’t go by specific wording, but do go with the spirit of the law. That matters. Also, let’s not even get into how language evolves and the idea that it is in any way static is a real big joke.

    source

    • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      okay, but we’re talking about net neutrality and how you got it wrong. it’s not about how strict I’m interpreting things or not. there’s no ambiguity in the definition here. you are NOT talking about net neutrality. it indeed does matter whether or not you’re using the right words here because you’re using them wrong. you can’t say apple is an orange, then when people say it’s not the same, you can’t say: well… it’s in the spirit of an apple because it’s a fruit. we’re not talking linguistics here either. you’re continuing to beat around the bush. you’re using some no true Scottsman fallacy here. you can’t say the true definition of something should include something that’s not in the definition just because you’re wrong. that’s not an argument.

      source

      • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I already agreed that I made a mistake.

        You made an argument, I refuted it, not necessarily in relation to the original argument.

        source